On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:54:28PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:48:50AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just compare that to the number of real bugs the warning found in gcc
> > >> codebase. It is really worth it for -Wextra.
> > >
> > > All those bugs would also have been found as well when it had simply
> > > accepted
> > > /fall.*thr/i
> > > anywhere in the preceding comment on one line. But all the recent
> > > spelling changes of comments to cater for the strictness exactly shows how
> > > misguided that is. The above would accept "Don't fall through" as well.
> > > I say: so what?
> >
> > I agree.
>
> All right, I'm not opposed to making the comment parsing more benevolent.
> We still should have enough time to fine-tune it.
Perhaps we want -Wimplicit-fallthrough{,=1,=2,=3,=4}, where
=1 would match indeed /fall.*thr/i (note, it will be really costly in this
case, one will have to parse all comments in detail in the preprocessor,
so I'd be against making it the default), =2 would allow
what we do right now, perhaps with the optional else and dots (perhaps
selected other interpunction chars), =3 would only allow the standardized
lint comments and =4 would not allow any comments, just the attributes?
Then each project can choose what they want.
Jakub
